Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives October 03 2016

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Consensual review[edit]

File:Kühnring Kellergasse 1.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Objekt in der Kellergasse „Reinprechtspöllarer Straße“ in Kühnring, Gemeinde Burgschleinitz-Kühnring, Niederösterreich. --Manfred Kuzel 15:37, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Very weak  Support. f/29 is really too much. It's a bit unsharp and the white stones are looking overexposed. --XRay 16:49, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I agree with XRays critique and feel the issues are too much to overlook, especially since they should be possible to fix.--Peulle 17:07, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Aperture is too high, undefined color space. --Jacek Halicki 21:50, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Provisional  Oppose per others. Seems fixable. -- Ikan Kekek 07:34, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment das ist korrigierbar, wenn die RAW vorliegt. ausgefressene Lichter können verbessert werden. --Ralf Roleček 20:45, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Hubertl 22:20, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

File:High-speed train at platform in Milano Stazione Centrale.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination ETR 500 Italian high-speed train at Milano Centrale --Daniel Case 17:30, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Comment Visible CA at the ceiling of the train station. Try to reduce highlights as well. --ElBute 16:24, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment Just to let you know I am working on this. Daniel Case 02:33, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
✓ Done OK, this is what I could do. Daniel Case 22:32, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 Comment I'm afraid the overexposition at the end of the station is not recoverable. However, this is unavoidable and not the object of interest in the photo. In any case, the CA at the ceiling are still very noticeable. It's easy to fix that. --ElBute 10:31, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
yeah, efforts to fix the other end usually made the CA worse, so I had to strike a balance; if we just focus on that maybe it will work. Daniel Case 16:26, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support I did it for you. If you don't agree, please revert. Good quality now. --ElBute 08:17, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Nice work but not QI for me.--Ermell 07:10, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Weak support; not perfect but good enough for QI, methinks. Seen worse been promoted before.--Peulle 22:14, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - I'm sorry, but the background is just not good enough for me. -- Ikan Kekek 06:13, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Background still looks overexposed; I know this kind of photos are not really easy, but like this it is not a Q1photo --Michielverbeek 07:13, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support I can tolerate the outside being blown out by this much. --King of Hearts 05:42, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support per Peulle. --W.carter 07:52, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Ralf Roletschek 20:47, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promoted   --Hubertl 22:21, 2 October 2016 (UTC)